Sidwell vs. other Quaker schools?

[Anonymous]

Between equally-qualified Quaker and non-Quaker kids (and assuming their isn't some problem with the Quaker kid that doesn't show up on the transcript, as 15:11 seems to be suggesting) then, if Sidwell chooses a few kids from wealthy and administration families, that would seem OK. But if they choose tons of the latter, to the detriment of the qualified Quaker kids, that starts to make people question the Quaker ethic.

[Anonymous]

there, not there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Between equally-qualified Quaker and non-Quaker kids (and assuming their isn't some problem with the Quaker kid that doesn't show up on the transcript, as 15:11 seems to be suggesting) then, if Sidwell chooses a few kids from wealthy and administration families, that would seem OK. But if they choose tons of the latter, to the detriment of the qualified Quaker kids, that starts to make people question the Quaker ethic.

I think issues are getting mixed here. The point is that Sidwell identifies itself as a Quaker school. So naturally if you are Quaker you would receive some preference over non-Quakers. This happens at other religious schools. We will never know the numbers of Quaker students that have applied to Sidwell, but I find it odd that a Quaker student would be denied (if they met the other criteria to gain admission). I attended a private Quaker high school. It was appealing to me because of the the messages about peace and the Quakers long history and involvement with social justice issues.

[Anonymous]

I'm the person you quoted. I think we actually agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person you quoted. I think we actually agree.

To elaborate my point, which maybe I didn't explain well: it's hard to understand why a qualified Quaker kid would be turned down, given that Sidwell seems to have a surfeit of rich kids and political appointees' kids. It seems they could take one less of the latter, and accept the qualified Quaker kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person you quoted. I think we actually agree.

To elaborate my point, which maybe I didn't explain well: it's hard to understand why a qualified Quaker kid would be turned down, given that Sidwell seems to have a surfeit of rich kids and political appointees' kids. It seems they could take one less of the latter, and accept the qualified Quaker kid.

It seems you're accepting without question the claim that PP's rejected "multi-generational, birth-right" child must be as qualified as (or maybe more qualified than) other children accepted at Sidwell? I'm more skeptical than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It seems you're accepting without question the claim that PP's rejected "multi-generational, birth-right" child must be as qualified as (or maybe more qualified than) other children accepted at Sidwell? I'm more skeptical than that.

Are you the poster that suggested she talk to the school about why her kid was rejected? It's possible that you're right. But I wouldn't assume that her kid has any undivulged problems, either.

Neither of us knows that answer to that, unless that PP is willing to talk, and unless we can both agree to believe her. But here's another question I want to put out there, which again neither of us can answer: are all the Quaker kids that Sidwell rejects somehow deficient in ways that aren't reflected in their test scores or GPAs?

[Anonymous]

If the priority students are all placed into one basket, then if there are multiple Quakers, multiple siblings, multiple kids of teachers, then a school can only take so many. Perhaps if there were many Quakers in the applicant pool, then the PP who is a multi-generational Quaker simply applied against other well qualified Quakers and the school had to make a tough choice.

[Anonymous]

But it's a pie, right? So that each group gets some percentage of the pie, and it all adds up to 100%. Sidwell decides who gets big pieces and who gets small pieces.
More rich donors means fewer Quakers.

[Anonymous]

Your post smacks of entitlement. Sidwell receives over 1100 applications competing for about 120 spots school-wide (PK, K, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 9th). The school has the lowest acceptance rate in the area and has to reject over 1000 applicants per year.

Practically everyone who applies to Sidwell believes their child is qualified, but are all 1100 applicants EQUALLY qualified/impressive? If the school receives so many applications that it can reject even 99% WPPSI kids, why is it so impossible to believe that other Quaker children may have been (slightly) more qualified/impressive than your Quaker child?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Quakers I know roll their eyes when the subject of Sidwell comes up. I get the distinct impression that they do not consider the school true to Quaker values -- despite all the talk.

Have you read the Sidwell admissions threads? Many generational or birth-right Quakers as they are called were not accepted at Sidwell this year. Many of the "true" members of Bethesda and Washington, DC Quaker meeting have ties to Sandy Spring Friends School.

My daughter is a mult-generational "birth-right" Quaker. Despite very good test scores, great recommendations, etc. she was rejected from Sidwell. We are going to Sandy Spring Friends school in the fall and couldn't be happier. We find it to be much truer to Quaker values and a much better fit for our family and for our daughter. It really is sad that Sidwell has move so far away from its Quaker roots. I have spoken to many Quakers from DC and Montgomery county who feel the same and who have not even bothered to submit an application to Sidwell for their child--as they do not feel it is a "true" Quaker school.

[Anonymous]

More rich donors means fewer Quakers.
[Report Post]

Not necessarily. My impression of Quakers is that they are, as a group, fairly prosperous.

[Anonymous]

I am the 19:24 poster.

20:23 summed up what I was getting at. The school could easily fill its slots with all rich kids, or all siblings, etc. I would suspect that there was a fair number of Quakers in the applicant pool, and as such, the poster in question cannot claim that there were not other qualified Quakers in the mix or that their child was somehow neglected at the expense of some other applicant pool.

[Anonymous]

ITA with 20:23 and 21:35. It's pretty common on DCUM for someone to complain her child's spot was taken by some "priority" applicant (for such reasons as diversity, legacy, connections, athletics, etc). The only twist in this situation is that one priority group (Quaker) is claiming "her" spot must have been taken by another priority group.

[Anonymous]

And how exactly would she prove that? The point is, she can't prove that her spot wasn't taken by another Quaker applicant. I agree with your point though. I'm sure somewhere in DC, there's some qualified priority applicant (i.e. sibling, legacy) claiming that "her" spot was taken by some unqualified Quaker. Sour grapes...there's enough to go around for everybody.

Anonymous wrote:ITA with 20:23 and 21:35. It's pretty common on DCUM for someone to complain her child's spot was taken by some "priority" applicant (for such reasons as diversity, legacy, connections, athletics, etc). The only twist in this situation is that one priority group (Quaker) is claiming "her" spot must have been taken by another priority group.

[Anonymous]

8:24 here again. I'm right with you on the underlined point. Indeed, she can't even prove her spot wasn't taken by a better-qualified non-Quaker applicant.

Just to be clear, I'm not posting just to pile on the "birth-right Quaker" PP -- I think the larger point here is that no one can credibly claim that any priority (or non-priority) applicant took her child's spot, because no one really knows for sure how her own child stacks up against the huge pool of other applicants.

Anonymous wrote:And how exactly would she prove that? The point is, she can't prove that her spot wasn't taken by another Quaker applicant. I agree with your point though. I'm sure somewhere in DC, there's some qualified priority applicant (i.e. sibling, legacy) claiming that "her" spot was taken by some unqualified Quaker. Sour grapes...there's enough to go around for everybody.

Anonymous wrote:ITA with 20:23 and 21:35. It's pretty common on DCUM for someone to complain her child's spot was taken by some "priority" applicant (for such reasons as diversity, legacy, connections, athletics, etc). The only twist in this situation is that one priority group (Quaker) is claiming "her" spot must have been taken by another priority group.